FIV, Alm.del - 2012-13 - Bilag 102: Opfølgning på High Level Seminaret

WHY CARE ABOUT TALENT?Two reasonsImportant for the universities. Danishuniversities have for many decades been of highinternational quality. See figureShanghai list: Two (three) Danish universitiesamong Top 100 (200). In Top 100 Sweden three,Finland one, and Norway oneStill, can and should improveMore importantly, due to growing internationalcompetition, risk of falling behind is bigger thanbefore.

Universities’ primary goals: education (producecultured, cultivated inidviduals who learn how tothink and solve problems) and research.Universities the home of latest scientificknowledge. Understand new findings and theirimportance.Most important discoveries (also those withcommercial applications) emanate randomlyfrom basic, not applied, research.Too strong focus on applied research, typicallymeans too strong specialization and a high risk oflocking yourself into an area with little impact.

The growing integration of the world economy,globalisation of production. Especially small openeconomies need to be prepared for largestructural changes in their economies (industriesbecoming obsolete).Increasing demand for global competenciesGrowth miracles of Japan, Korea and Taiwaninvolved educating their best and brightest youngpeople by foreigners. China’s doing the same;others will follow their examples.For success as in exporting, you need to have adeep understanding of your (potential) market.

Easy to understand neighbour countries. Less sofor geographically and culturally more distanteconomies, like the BRIC countries.Danish exports rests on relatively few (butstrong) shoulders.Maybe even more important: to understand yourcompetitors. And as an employee, the foreignowners of your workplace.Diversity of the workforce drives innovation andhelps in understanding of foreign markets

1. Danish students studying abroad but also to haveforeign students at Danish universities. Not onlyto/from OECD.2. More international faculty and doctoral students atDanish universities.3. More mobility between universities. Already at agood level. Could follow the US example and not allowPhDs to stay at the same university after theirgraduation.Why mobility? Discoveries, new findings travelfast with internet, but the ways of thinking, howto make them is embodied in people.4. More international content in the curriculum.Especially in social sciences and humanities.

RECEIVERS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTSChart C4.2. Distribution of foreign students in tertiary education, bycountry of destination (2010)Percentage of foreign tertiary students reported to the OECD who are enrolled inOther non-OECDcountry of destinationeachcountries 15.5%United States� 16.6%

Other OECD countries6.4%Sweden 1.1%United Kingdom� 13%Netherlands 1.2%Belgium 1.3%Switzerland 1.3%Korea 1.4%Austria 1.7%South Africa 1.5%China 1.8%Australia�, � 6.6%Italy 1.7%New Zealand 1.7%Spain 2.4%Germany 6.4%Japan 3.4%Russian FederationFrance 6.3%3.9%Canada� 4.7%1. Data relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence.2. Year of reference 2009.3. Student stocks are derived from different sources; therefore, results should be interpreted with some caution.Source:OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD destinations. Tables C4.4 and C4.7,available on line.

50ChinaSaudi ArabiaSwitzerlandNorwayIcelandRussian FederationIrelandSwedenSloveniaLuxembourgHungaryFranceSouth Africa1FinlandPortugalGreeceAustriaKoreaCanada�AustraliaNetherlandsDenmarkUnited StatesBelgiumSlovak RepublicEstoniaPolandCzech RepublicTurkeyJapanSpainBrazilChileItalyUnited KingdomNew ZealandIndonesia

1. Year of reference 2009.2. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship, these data are not comparable with data oninternational students and are therefore presented separately in the table.Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international students in tertiary education.Source:OECD. Table C4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012).

MOBILITY PATTERNS OF FOREIGN ANDINTERNATIONAL STUDENTS,SELECTEDCOUNTRIESCountryPercentage of nationalNumber of foreign studentstertiary students enrolled per national student abroadabroad (%)Denmark3.23.6SwedenNorwayFinlandOECDEU21BrazilRussiaChina4.36.73.72.03.60.50.82.02.41.01.32.92.70.42.3n.a.

WHERE DO THEY GO(TO STUDY)?To:OECDEU21NordicsGermanyUKNorth AmericaOceaniaAsia (Japan, Korea)From:DenmarkNorway Sweden97.263.023.56.534.314.84.90.697.875.526.72.723.310.410.40.695.162.323.43.626.717.45.11.0

WHERE DO THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS INDENMARK(AND SOME OTHER COUNTRIES)COME FROM?From:AfricaAsiaEurope(EU21)(Nordics)North AmericaOceaniaLatin AmericaUnspecifiedTotalTo:DenmarkSweden Germany Netherlands UK2.515.472.4(36.4)(31.3)1.50.41.36.5100.05.745.323.32.40.32.320.6100.09.033.142.72.20.34.68.1100.02.012.281.40.70.12.41.2100.09.350.531.0France42.821.821.3

HOW DO YOU ATTRACT TALENT(STUDENTSAND RESEARCHERS) ?”Best practice”: the United StatesU.S. obtains a large part of its highly qualifiedlabour force from other countries and via theiruniversities; see tableH1-B Visa: ”for workers in specialtyoccupations,… requiring a body of specializedknowledge and a bachelor’s degree or equivalent”.Temporary, granted for three years, renewablefor a total of six years.American high-tech firms and universities worrya lot that this flow of talent would dry up.

Studies show that:Increases in college-educated immigrants increasespatenting per capita.College-educated immigrants outperform college-educated natives in wages, (commerialized)patenting, publishing and starting up firms (with 10+employees). Differences especially large in science andengineering fields.Immigrants arriving on student and temporary workvisas are the best and brightest.Drastic, temporary cut in number of H1-B visas in2004 resulted in lower academic quality (SAT andGPA scores) of prospective international students.

Is actually doing very well in many fields, giventhe country’s size and resources spent onuniversities.Can’t rest on our laurels, though.Several small steps in the right direction. Bigchanges, the University Law and the mergers,had little impact and (if any) did probably moredamage than good.

Creativity and innovativeness flourish in small, relativelyinformal, groups. Money spent on ”strategic” researchinitiatives or ”programs” mostly pay off very little.Successful research cooperation within/across borders isnota top-down process.Important to note: many countries in the same situation,students and young well educated people much moremobile than others. Know their worth, have alternatives,do not accept being poorly treated.Attracting good foreign students. Offer possibility to stayand work in the country. Old rules, non-EU studentshaving to leave almost immediately after graduation, ahuge waste of money. New rules are better, but stop-gopolicy (now how have enough, now we don’t) sends thewrong signal.The US example does not apply here? In Finland about 70per cent of the foreign students stay in the country aftergraduation.

Current immigration office (SFR) and policies are aconsiderable obstacle to attract talent to firms anduniversities.The reputation is damaged and especially among educatedpeople information travels fast.Many highly educated and talented persons do not planupon arrival to stay for the rest of their lives. Means: de-emphasize the importance of Danish language skills (whenyou’ve decided to stay, you want to learn).Instead, provide services in English: for instance, youcommunicate with newcomers in English and you haveinternational schools for children as in other Europeancountries.Employers and universities are doing more and more tomake foreign talent feel welcome. Would help a lot ifgovernmental policies would work in the same direction.